Another Fire Bevell Thread

[West TX Hawk]

His defenders keep pointing to the most previous game for exceptions and anomalies every week. Every week! If you have to defend someone every week, he's probably not worth defending!

He gets defended every week because every week there's one of these blummin threads.

This basically sums it up perfectly:

You trust Pete in literally EVERY other aspect of this team, yet for some reason not the O-coordinator. Why?

Why? Because it cost us a Super Bowl 49 victory.

And that "basically sums it up perfectly."

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Why? Because it cost us a Super Bowl victory.

And that "basically sums it up perfectly."

Read the other Bevell thread

Sports Illustrated:
"I’ve heard or read all the detailed and impassioned defenses of the call—which was made by Seattle offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell and approved by Carroll."

"He" didn't cost us, Pete did. Pete could have said let's run. But he didn't.................he said yep, let's run the slant.

I'm actually enjoying this now, educating Hawk fans on the inner working of coordinator/coach hierarchy.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Some people don't want to be educated. They just need a scapegoat to focus the blame as some sort of pain-easing catharsis. I guess I'd compare it to someone who chews snuff. Us non-chewers can see how harmful that habit can be to the body, but that will never sway the chewers, who like Bevell bashers, derive a sense of calm from their practice of choice.

 

[JustTheTip]

I see it more as swingers and non swingers. There are those that understand we have it good, but are interested in discussing how it can be better. Then there are those who are content to happily swing on somebody's sack.

I prefer the non swingers, without them we would still be looking up a horses rear everywhere we went.

 

[Siouxhawk]

That didn't even make sense.

 

[HawkGA]

That didn't even make sense.

I don't agree with much of what you say, but I do agree with this. :irishdrinkers:

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I see it more as swingers and non swingers. There are those that understand we have it good, but are interested in discussing how it can be better. Then there are those who are content to happily swing on somebody's sack.

I prefer the non swingers, without them we would still be looking up a horses rear everywhere we went.

A better analogy would be some of us use critical thinking, logic and reason when discussing how to make things better............and some of us knee jerk after losses at the easiest target.

It's fairly simple. If this was a historically poor offense consistently ranked in the 20's with our talent it'd be easy for me to agree that it's a good idea to change up O-coordinators. But it's not, #4 last year.

You guys also don't understand that you probably wouldn't even notice a coordinator change, because that new coordinator would still have to work within the confines of what Pete wants this offense to look like, just as Bevell has had to do.

We're not running Bevell's schemes and philosophies, we're running Pete's, and he ain't changing.

 

[JustTheTip]

That didn't even make sense.

It is difficult to make sense while mocking something that is ridiculous.